[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Question for all of you. Do you really believe that the President (from whichever side) truly has the power, on their own to either fuck things up or improve them? Or do you think that they are more likely a figurehead wheeled out to spout whatever the policy makers and speach writers prepare for them?
[/quote]
Depends on a couple of things:
First or second term?
Are they the face of the party?
Does the party think they have momentum based off of their actions?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Question for all of you. Do you really believe that the President (from whichever side) truly has the power, on their own to either fuck things up or improve them? Or do you think that they are more likely a figurehead wheeled out to spout whatever the policy makers and speach writers prepare for them?
[/quote]
Depends on a couple of things:
First or second term?
Are they the face of the party?
Does the party think they have momentum based off of their actions?
Can they raise money?
Is the issue at hand real, or political folly?[/quote]
Do you really think any of that matters to much of a degree? I am sure that the factors above make a President easier or harder to control (along with their own personality and the amount of skeletons in their closet) but do you really think the policies that get enacted come from the President?
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Question for all of you. Do you really believe that the President (from whichever side) truly has the power, on their own to either fuck things up or improve them? Or do you think that they are more likely a figurehead wheeled out to spout whatever the policy makers and speach writers prepare for them?
[/quote]
Depends on a couple of things:
First or second term?
Are they the face of the party?
Does the party think they have momentum based off of their actions?
Can they raise money?
Is the issue at hand real, or political folly?[/quote]
Do you really think any of that matters to much of a degree? I am sure that the factors above make a President easier or harder to control (along with their own personality and the amount of skeletons in their closet) but do you really think the policies that get enacted come from the President?[/quote]
In part at least, sure. I would imagine any POTUS is going to have a team of yes men and like minded individuals around to cheer them on and think on details, but under certain conditions, I do believe a POTUS will act under their own accord rather than toe a line or pay back the favors they had.
It all comes down to money for the party, and how much that POTUS can either keep the party going or hurt it. After the money comes ego and legacy concern.
Look at Obamacare. That is a huge gamble for a first term POTUS, however the wave of excitement for his celebrity status, and the anti-republican narrative was so strong, it was the time to push through, well to be honest, the bill he fought against in the primary. If Bam didn’t want that atrocity tied to his legacy, he could have killed the momentum, and just paid back those donors with a different stimulus package. Instead he paid them back with waivers from his god awful law.
But to even get on the ticket you have had to raise huge sums of money, and be able to get more. This means you owe party pillars a shit ton of favors. So a POTUS’ policy choices will be limited to what their mega donors want to a degree as well.
No I don’t think there is some giant NWO conspiracy that runs the POTUS, if that is what you are getting at. But it would explain a lot fo shit.
I’m not sure there is a super organised NWO secret group but I am pretty certain that there are a number of people who stay in their job policy making regardless of who sits in the oval office. That coupled with the amount of money coming in from lobbying groups (who typically back both sides to be on the safe side) and the fact that no-one gets to the top in politics without some dirt in their background means to me that the President is pretty much a talking head and a convenient outlet for the people’s anger when things are done that they disagree with.
You never hear people saying that ‘the three branches of the executive government combined to make decisions that I disagree with’ it’s ‘Obamacare sucks’ or ‘Bush took us into an illegal war’
[quote]H factor wrote:
I was comparing the two. That much was obvious to you. Quit dancing around the fact. Clinton screwed up slightly Bush majorly was all I was saying.
Jeez “Zeb Jr.” let it rest. [/quote]
Had Clinton actually taken the Saudi’s up on there willingness to hand over Osama then 9/11 might never happened, and the 2nd Iraq war would not have happened. So who screwed up again?[/quote]
If W hadn’t fucked up the entire economy handing Obama the biggest clusterfuck since the Great Depression then bailouts might not have happened, stimulus bill might not have happened, even Obamacare might not have happened (don’t forget it was his shitty handling that led to the Democrats winning everything).
Anyone can play that “but it wasn’t his fault” game. Obama has sucked ass as a President, but you can easily blame the guy before for the failures of the current guy if you want. W owns Iraq. We had absolutely no reason to go in before inspections were done except for his own desire to get in there.
And before you go there spare me the conservative line about how the economic catastrophe was all Clinton’s fault as well as absurdly as calling the success of the 90’s a result of Newt Gingrich only. [/quote]
Also Remember the vote to go to war with Iraq went through Congress and only 1 Democrat voted no.[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
I was comparing the two. That much was obvious to you. Quit dancing around the fact. Clinton screwed up slightly Bush majorly was all I was saying.
Jeez “Zeb Jr.” let it rest. [/quote]
Had Clinton actually taken the Saudi’s up on there willingness to hand over Osama then 9/11 might never happened, and the 2nd Iraq war would not have happened. So who screwed up again?[/quote]
If W hadn’t fucked up the entire economy handing Obama the biggest clusterfuck since the Great Depression then bailouts might not have happened, stimulus bill might not have happened, even Obamacare might not have happened (don’t forget it was his shitty handling that led to the Democrats winning everything).
Anyone can play that “but it wasn’t his fault” game. Obama has sucked ass as a President, but you can easily blame the guy before for the failures of the current guy if you want. W owns Iraq. We had absolutely no reason to go in before inspections were done except for his own desire to get in there.
And before you go there spare me the conservative line about how the economic catastrophe was all Clinton’s fault as well as absurdly as calling the success of the 90’s a result of Newt Gingrich only. [/quote]
Also Remember the vote to go to war with Iraq went through Congress and only 1 Democrat voted no.[/quote]
Conveniently forgotten.[/quote]
The Democrats are a party of complete numbskull fuckhead idiots.
It’s a shame the opposition to them isn’t any better or different.
[quote]H factor wrote:
What is being famous for if you can’t fuck bitches? Don’t really care about this old news but play on Billy boy. At least this mistake didn’t lead to billions in a wasted war and lots of dead people.